Because the difference is that you aren't talking about differences, you're talking about inferiorities.

No, I'm talking about differences.

And you have zero justification to back those up. The only link you've provided on it provided a wealth of evidence that you are wrong, that women's brains are better at all the skills that go into negotiations.

That was your interpretation.

You're not acknowledging difference.

Yes I am. One gender is inclined towards some skills and the other isn't, and vice versa. It doesn't mean the skills make someone inherently better.This is your position you brought in and have yet to justify why difference must imply inferiority.http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/m...ro-homens.html
Hell, even a neuroscientist says what I say at the bottom:

But do these differences mean a superiority/inferiority relationship between men and women?
"No", says Dr. Pearlson. "To say this means that men are automatically better at some things than women is a simplification. It's easy to find women who are fantastic at math and physics and men who excel in language skills. Only when we look at very large populations and look for slight but significant trends do we see the generalizations.

I don't expect you to stop with this train of thought though.

If you want to play the quote game, I can too

So I've proven some feminists do and some don't. What's your point, exactly? My point is that feminists DO look at it and have done for years. I'd equally accept some don't.

You've yet to provide even a shred of evidence that "negotiation" is a sexist practice that women aren't capable of handling as well as men.

I have; you just interpreted differently. I then put my interpretation in. You don't "win" because you think you win.

Until you pony up actual neurologically peer-reviewed proof that shows women have brains that simply cannot negotiate well, I'm going to continue dismissing this as a fiction.

Do what you wish.

Last edited by Zhangfei; 2013-03-13 at 10:33 PM.

In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.

Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.

"This activity across both hemispheres of the brain may result in the strong language skills typically displayed by females."
"Geary suggests that women use language skills to their advantage. "Females use language more when they compete. They gossip, manipulate information," he says. Geary suggests that this behavior, referred to as relational aggression, may have given females a survival advantage long ago."
"Women are faster and more accurate at identifying emotions"
"Women, as a whole, may also be better than men at controlling their emotions."

All of those are the skills required for negotiations. Your own link says women are better at those than men, neurologically speaking. It directly contradicts your theory.

What magical skill are you claiming women can't handle that's necessary in negotiations, if you disagree? And what's your evidence to support the claim that women can't perform in that regard?

Yes I am. One gender is inclined towards some skills and the other isn't, and vice versa. It doesn't mean the skills make someone inherently better.This is your position you brought in and have yet to justify why difference must imply inferiority.

That is absolutely not true;

Originally Posted by Zhangfei

I'm saying there's a neurological component that disadvantages them on the whole

A "disadvantage" is a lack, a way in which they are inferior. Talking about how they are disadvantaged isn't just talking about how they're different, it's talking about how they're worse off. Or "inferior".

I'd be all for just talking about differences. You're the one who used terminology that took it to ascribing systemic inferiority. I'm reacting this strongly because, as someone with a highly professionally successful mother and sister, I find the argument that they are "neurologically disadvantaged" due to their gender to be highly offensive at a personal level. You even intimated that they were disabled, by equating the differences you see in women with those suffered by the disabled.

The whole thing is the exact opposite of what feminism is supposed to be about; that women are the full equals of men and fully capable of handling themselves without needing special advantages to offset their supposed "neurological disadvantages".

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that Zhangfei is intellectually dishonest about his/her sexism.

Infracted: Please refrain from personally attacking other people while also not contributing to the discussion at hand.

Last edited by Wikiy; 2013-03-15 at 09:34 PM.

Originally Posted by Jevlin

Why? Because fuck you, that's why.

Every time you have a question that begins with "Why?" that is about what other people prefer to do with their own goddamn time, come back here, and reread the first row of this post. That will ALWAYS be the answer to your question. Have a nice day.

Quite possibly. From what I can gather you haven't condemned this bizarre male-dominated and oriented practice and used some economics theory to avoid discussing social, ethical and gender theory, so I'm assuming your support of a sexist practice through economics means you support it in general.

If you're going to continue to try to talk for me rather than to me then there isn't much point to having a discussion. The practice is male dominated but not male oriented. It is profit oriented. It is pragmatism, not sexism. But by all means, keep throwing out straw men.

Proof positive. Negotiating for pay does not determine the value of work done.

Value determines bargaining position. Responsibility lies with the worker to bring their full value forward and make the most of that bargaining position. People who are grossly underpaid are the ones responsible for that state of affairs. I learned that lessons the hard way, and when I did I doubled my salary in a span of 2 years.

On point 1; most studies which claim a 20-30% wage gap do NOT control for job choice; they are NOT comparing people in the same job, they are collecting average salary info on everyone and averaging it all out.

At no point did I reference those studies and I have clearly stated many times I am talking about comparing people in the same job. DisposableHero did make a good point and them mayby comparing different branches of the same type of job which, could be the case.

On point 2; it's not a "punishment", it's a recognition that choices have consequences. If you choose to focus on family over career, your career will suffer. If you focus on career over family, your family will suffer. If you try to balance both, they will both suffer a little. In Canada, paternity leave is just as much a "thing" as maternity; the main difference is that maternity leave can start 8 weeks prior to birth, while paternity (and adoptive parental leave for that matter) can't start before birth (or date of adoption). It's not a gender issue, it's a career vs family time investment issue.

At consequence of ones action/choice can either be a punishment or reward so I am not getting your point.

You bring up and interresting point about it not being a gender issue but it is. It speaks directly to the gender role of the mother being the main caregiver for the children in a relationship. It is being used the much the same way as gender roles in child custody cases are used. In the matter things are more in favor of the father then the mother in a "job" setting.

On point 4; of course there are lawsuits. It's illegal to murder people but people still do it. You can't ever completely eliminate these things, you can only provide legal protections and push for social recognition of equality on the whole. There will always BE sexists, just like there will always be racists. That doesn't mean they're still a systemic problem. Law is not meant to prevent illegal activities, it's meant to reduce and limit them, so that they are the exception rather than the rule and when those exceptions are brought to light, they can be punished.

If find those are matters of opinion depending on if you are the targeted group or not.

That's how it is, in practice. The wage gap for under-35s is less than 10%, and that's without accounting for job choice.

2009 US Dept. of Labor study that does NOT account for job choice, simply averages out wages by age group. Under-35s, about a 10% difference, that likely comes down to job choice and women taking time out for childbearing (since 20-35 is the prime age for that). It's the over-35s that see a 25% pay gap or so (again, without accounting for job choice). So we really are talking about a small wage gap among the newer generation, one that can likely be completely explained as being due to job choice, time off for childbearing, and negotiation confidence, since none of those were eliminated for that study.

That study also makes note that the wage gap does get bigger after the age of 35 and that it is a continued trend. For women if they want to have a family with children they are punished for that choice while men are not. Lower wages is a consequences of the choice to have children but that consequence is also a punishment as well because it an negative effect women. Men on the other hand can choose to have children and that choice does not have an effect on their wage unless they choose it to.

The goal on the wage gap isn't to make sure women are, on average, making as much as men. It's to ensure there is equality of opportunity. If women make different choices than men, on average, and those choices mean they see different results, that's not discrimination, and it's not something we should be worrying about, necessarily. Equality of opportunity is what we need. If women end up having different priorities than men and, in general, make different choices, that's fine.

But is the opportunity equal when childbirth which can only be done by women is seen as a negitive? Right when a women comes in and is of a child bearing age that is going to part of the job hiring process as well. Is she going to take off time to have kids? If she has kids much time will she have to take off to look after them or can she work long hours of need be. Those are just questions that most men just do not have to face when being looked at to take a job. Those are not even questions that most men even think about when looking for job.

Originally Posted by Eroginous

When my son was born, I had been working for Fred Meyer for just over 3 years. I was allowed to take 6 weeks off (paid) and stay home with my son and his mother. My GF at the time worked right up until his birth (cuz she's a champ) and she was allowed to take 3 months off. That was almost 10 years ago.

So yes, I agree completely.

Where do you live because the US does not have paid paternity or maternity leave, what most working women do is save up vacation days and take out short term disablility when they know they are trying to get pregnant. If you have to you take your saved up vacation days before the baby is born, take a leave of absence which protects you from losing your job for up to 12 weeks. Men also can save up vacation days and take a leave of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act but the 12 weeks is unpaid time off. Now there maybe some states or companies that offer better maternity or paternity leave packages but for the most part it is has I have stated.

At consequence of ones action/choice can either be a punishment or reward so I am not getting your point.

If you were free to make your choice either way, it's neither a "punishment" nor a "reward". It's a "consequence". There are good and bad consequences to your decisions, but as you were free to make an informed choice, the "blame" for those consequences lies with you.

Imagine there were a game show where you could pick a box, and get a prize. If you can't make an informed decision because you can't see what's in the box, it's a crapshoot. If they change the prize because of your gender, they're discriminating. If, however, you can see inside the box, and know exactly what you're picking, if women consistently pick a lower-value prize than men, there is no discrimination. Women are not being "punished", they're simply making different choices that have different consequences, but they knew about those consequences going in.

You bring up and interresting point about it not being a gender issue but it is. It speaks directly to the gender role of the mother being the main caregiver for the children in a relationship. It is being used the much the same way as gender roles in child custody cases are used. In the matter things are more in favor of the father then the mother in a "job" setting.

That's not a gender issue. That is, again, an issue of the balance between family and career investment. Women may be choosing to invest more time in family than career, compared to men. This will mean their career success will suffer. That's to be expected, and is not in any way discriminatory. If they don't want to suffer those consequences, they just need to put off having a family.

For women if they want to have a family with children they are punished for that choice while men are not.

Absolutely false. If a man takes off a couple years to be the "housedad" while his wife takes off two weeks to recover from the birth and then is back to work, his career will be "punished" in exactly the same way that a woman's would, because it's not gender discrimination, it's the natural and expected consequence of not being as dedicated to your career as someone else is. Women are NOT being punished because they want a family, they're choosing to put family over career. They could hire a nanny or use a daycare and keep working, instead.

Men on the other hand can choose to have children and that choice does not have an effect on their wage unless they choose it to.

Simply not true. Men suffer the exact same consequences, assuming they take time off to raise the child. What you're doing is assuming that all women must decide to take time off to raise their child, and that men can't or won't. And THAT is sexism. Women tend to do so more, but it's their free choice to do so. I'm not going to start telling women they're making the "wrong" choices. I'm just pointing out that choices have consequences. Stay at home and bond with your kids, while letting your career suffer? Hire a nanny and keep working, and deal with the increased emotional distance between you and your kids? Try to balance both and inevitably cause stress with both? There's no path that lacks consequences. You just pick the ones you find most acceptable. And these consequences aren't divided by gender; they're divided by the choice.

But is the opportunity equal when childbirth which can only be done by women is seen as a negitive? Right when a women comes in and is of a child bearing age that is going to part of the job hiring process as well. Is she going to take off time to have kids? If she has kids much time will she have to take off to look after them or can she work long hours of need be. Those are just questions that most men just do not have to face when being looked at to take a job. Those are not even questions that most men even think about when looking for job.

Now you're just straw manning. What you're describing is illegal. At least in Canada, there's a minimum employment period, but if you've been working there that long, you both qualify for maternity/parental leave, and your job is safe. The minimum exists to prevent someone being hired and pretty much immediately going on leave; the employer is free to just hire someone else instead. Employers can't factor this in to hiring.

In addition to all that, it has squat to do with the concept of equality of opportunity, which is what you were responding to.

At consequence of ones action/choice can either be a punishment or reward so I am not getting your point.

You bring up and interresting point about it not being a gender issue but it is. It speaks directly to the gender role of the mother being the main caregiver for the children in a relationship. It is being used the much the same way as gender roles in child custody cases are used. In the matter things are more in favor of the father then the mother in a "job" setting.

Women don't have to become mothers. Women who become mothers don't have to stay home and raise their children instead of working. Everything you and these other feminists keep saying is built upon the assumption that women are required to do things they simply are not required to do. Everything a woman does is the direct result of the personal choices that woman makes. There are consequences for each one of those choices, and it has nothing to do with sexism or gender roles. A company does not have to pay any two people who perform the same job, the same amount of money. It doesn't matter if one is a man and the other is a woman.

A companies only obligation is to acquire people to fill positions and pay those people what they are willing to pay them.

Originally Posted by Jevlin

Why? Because fuck you, that's why.

Every time you have a question that begins with "Why?" that is about what other people prefer to do with their own goddamn time, come back here, and reread the first row of this post. That will ALWAYS be the answer to your question. Have a nice day.

Women don't have to become mothers. Women who become mothers don't have to stay home and raise their children instead of working. Everything you and these other feminists keep saying is built upon the assumption that women are required to do things they simply are not required to do. Everything a woman does is the direct result of the personal choices that woman makes. There are consequences for each one of those choices, and it has nothing to do with sexism or gender roles. A company does not have to pay any two people who perform the same job, the same amount of money. It doesn't matter if one is a man and the other is a woman.

A companies only obligation is to acquire people to fill positions and pay those people what they are willing to pay them.

Exactly.

If a woman makes the same choices as a man does, with regards to career and family, she should end up in the same spot. If she makes different choices, then she can't compare the place she ends up with his, since she took an entirely different path. That doesn't make it a worse path, just a different one, with different priorities.

That's the difference between equality of opportunity and equality in practice. Equality of opportunity says that you should have an equal chance to succeed, if you make the same decisions that lead to that success. Equality in practice is the idea that regardless of your choices, you should get paid the same, which is an idea that is patently ridiculous; it essentially argues that a homemaker who has a part-time job making decorative pots they sell at the flea market should be making the same income as the best neurosurgeon in the country. That's a far more extreme example than they ever use to defend it, but that's why I'm making it; it's no different except in extremity than arguing that a woman who's taken a year and a half out of her career path to bear and raise three children, and who works the expected hours per week but no more, should be making the same as a man who's been dedicated to his career since graduation and who always works 10-20 hours of overtime every week. The first example was deliberately gender-neutral, since the issue here is not actually gender-based; I only insert gender for the second because I'm paraphrasing the examples used by those who champion "equality in practice".

If your argument doesn't still work when you extend it to the extremes, then it's logically flawed. That's how a reductio ad absurdum criticism works.

Women don't have to become mothers. Women who become mothers don't have to stay home and raise their children instead of working. Everything you and these other feminists keep saying is built upon the assumption that women are required to do things they simply are not required to do. Everything a woman does is the direct result of the personal choices that woman makes. There are consequences for each one of those choices, and it has nothing to do with sexism or gender roles. A company does not have to pay any two people who perform the same job, the same amount of money. It doesn't matter if one is a man and the other is a woman.

A companies only obligation is to acquire people to fill positions and pay those people what they are willing to pay them.

If a man doesn't have a child, he advances his career. If a woman doesn't have a child, she advances her career.

Fine.

If a man has a child with his wife, he goes to work every day same as always and advances his career. If a woman has a child with her husband, she will inherently have to miss some time and her career will suffer.

Not so cool.

It's swell to say a woman chooses to have a child, but so do fathers that go to work through the pregnancy. Is a pregnant woman expected to have her kid at her desk, or to drop the kid after hours and be back at work the next morning? Sounds like a creepy society.

Now, I agree it's not the company's fault that women have babies. That doesn't mean you can say women should suck it up cuz it was their choice, because the same does not apply to the male contributor to the child.

If a man has a child with his wife, he goes to work every day same as always and advances his career. If a woman has a child with her husband, she will inherently have to miss some time and her career will suffer.

Not so cool.

Not true. Most women can recover from birthing and return to work in a couple of weeks. That's normal medical leave kind of stuff, nothing that would hurt your career. If you're referring to the first few months of raising a newborn, that's a choice.

Not true. Most women can recover from birthing and return to work in a couple of weeks. That's normal medical leave kind of stuff, nothing that would hurt your career. If you're referring to the first few months of raising a newborn, that's a choice.

Not to mention it would be perfect valid for a new father to take time off from work to raise his newborn child, his career would suffer, but I don't see why a man automatically goes to work every day in this situation. He makes a choice too.

I don't really care if you take me seriously. You've done nothing but make some of the most ridiculous arguments using common logical fallacies. I pointed out that you refused to address any actual arguments.... because that's what you're doing. I typed out 5 paragraphs of stuff, and you quoted and responded to ONE sentence. You only responded at all because I put something ridiculous in my post.

That doesn't change the fact that most everything I said was legitimate and factual. Yes, it really does seem like women care more about marching around topless than resolving actual issues. I'd love for you to show me how I am wrong without resorting to your obviously fallacious tactics.

fallacious tactics indeed. my my.

please provide your evidence for "its a fair criticism of feminism as a whole to say that [they] care more about being topless than addressing issues women face in society".

If a man has a child with his wife, he goes to work every day same as always and advances his career. If a woman has a child with her husband, she will inherently have to miss some time and her career will suffer.

Not so cool.

But there you go offering a false dichotomy again. When a man and a woman have a baby, they have more than just the one choice:

1. Hire a nanny or a babysitter to care for the child while the parents work.

2. The mother stays home and cares for the child instead of working.

3. The father stays home and cares for the child instead of working.

The choice any two parents make in this situation completely depend on what's best for those parents. There is no rule where a mother is forced to stay home and care for the children because 'that's what mom's do.' If a mother chooses to stay home and give up her career, that's her choice. It could end up being that the father decides to stay at home and care for the children (that's becoming more common), allowing the woman to continue her career.

Please stop with the logical fallacies now...

Originally Posted by Jevlin

Why? Because fuck you, that's why.

Every time you have a question that begins with "Why?" that is about what other people prefer to do with their own goddamn time, come back here, and reread the first row of this post. That will ALWAYS be the answer to your question. Have a nice day.

this forum is so wonderfully full of zionists, of course that women are intellectually inferior etc etc etc. but like pederasty and many other things it has been covered. endus is just a good example of either total idiot or persistent left winger who has profits from it. just remember boys, that this forum just like curse belongs to french freemasonery ( totally left winged political organisation ). now I want my ban, I need to take a break.

It is something to do, like a hobby, for bored and usually unattractive women (just an observation, I believe men can be unattractive as well I promise) that feel the inadequacy in their lives is down to society and not themselves.

The ones that usually get the most media attention are always focusing on first world problems in the west (such as this video game characters skirt is too short, why is this video game character so much prettier than me or 'we should walk around town in provocative clothing so rapists change their mind about rape').

The way I look at, if feminism never existed previously and society was just magically how it is today, would feminism be something that would occur naturally from 2013 onwards? In my opinion it wouldn't.

please provide your evidence for "its a fair criticism of feminism as a whole to say that [they] care more about being topless than addressing issues women face in society".

This is pretty easy. Go to FEMEN.org, translate the page from Russian to English (if you know Russian feel free to skip this step). Count how many times you can find phrases like "nude protest", "topless warrior", "extreme sexual action", and the like, and contrast that to how many times they explain the issues they hope to solve through these protests. If any Russian speaking readers can chime in to explain how this is something lost in translation, I'm perfectly willing to accept that, but as it stands, it seems to me they quite obviously care more about the fact they are nude than about what they are fighting for.

Obviously FEMEN is not the whole of feminism, but they are pretty clear that they consider themselves part of it, and this is where that perception comes from, because they look very much like they emphasize the nude in nude protest way more than the protest part.

Now you're just straw manning. What you're describing is illegal. At least in Canada, there's a minimum employment period, but if you've been working there that long, you both qualify for maternity/parental leave, and your job is safe. The minimum exists to prevent someone being hired and pretty much immediately going on leave; the employer is free to just hire someone else instead. Employers can't factor this in to hiring.

Have you ever been part of the job hiring process? It does happen quite often and as long as no comes right out and tells a person they were not hired because of that reason there is nothing a person can do. I don't live in Canada so their rules don't apply to people in the US. Oh they can factor that into hiring, they just can't say they did legally. The concept of equality of opportunity is an illusion because we are still being hired, evaluated, and fired by human beings. Human being that bring their own personal biases and judgements to the table. We try to have a system of checks and balances to create some type of equality of opportunity but those checks and balances can be easily side stepped. The only time we find out about when that happens is when someone blows the whisle on them or they are so balant in their practices. This does not just go for biases against women but men, people of different races/ backgrounds or that gir/guy that looks just like the person that used to bully me in 7th grade.

Originally Posted by Eroginous

Women don't have to become mothers. Women who become mothers don't have to stay home and raise their children instead of working. Everything you and these other feminists keep saying is built upon the assumption that women are required to do things they simply are not required to do. Everything a woman does is the direct result of the personal choices that woman makes. There are consequences for each one of those choices, and it has nothing to do with sexism or gender roles. A company does not have to pay any two people who perform the same job, the same amount of money. It doesn't matter if one is a man and the other is a woman.

A companies only obligation is to acquire people to fill positions and pay those people what they are willing to pay them.

Where did I say women had to become mothers? Where did I say they have to stay home and raise their children? Don't try and call people out on assumptions when you, yourself, start off a post full of assumptions the biggest of which being calling me a feminist. If a couple wants to have children there is no "choice" in who is going to have them? There is no choice in having to take time off or leave early for medical appointments or any other time off that may happen in the course of pregnancy and giving birth. Now the man does have a choice if when wants to take time off to go with the woman to appointments or other things but there is no choice for the woman.

Originally Posted by Endus

Exactly.

If a woman makes the same choices as a man does, with regards to career and family, she should end up in the same spot. If she makes different choices, then she can't compare the place she ends up with his, since she took an entirely different path. That doesn't make it a worse path, just a different one, with different priorities.

That's the difference between equality of opportunity and equality in practice. Equality of opportunity says that you should have an equal chance to succeed, if you make the same decisions that lead to that success. Equality in practice is the idea that regardless of your choices, you should get paid the same, which is an idea that is patently ridiculous; it essentially argues that a homemaker who has a part-time job making decorative pots they sell at the flea market should be making the same income as the best neurosurgeon in the country. That's a far more extreme example than they ever use to defend it, but that's why I'm making it; it's no different except in extremity than arguing that a woman who's taken a year and a half out of her career path to bear and raise three children, and who works the expected hours per week but no more, should be making the same as a man who's been dedicated to his career since graduation and who always works 10-20 hours of overtime every week. The first example was deliberately gender-neutral, since the issue here is not actually gender-based; I only insert gender for the second because I'm paraphrasing the examples used by those who champion "equality in practice".

If your argument doesn't still work when you extend it to the extremes, then it's logically flawed. That's how a reductio ad absurdum criticism works.

Why do you insisted on putting words in my mouth? Never once did I say that women who has taken off a year and half to raise children should be paid the same as someone who has not. No one is a champion for "equality in practice", you just have to used it to your argument work. When given an example that is not lacking in common sense the only answer to that is they negotiated a better for themselves which still is based on the assumption that the man did in fact negotiate a better pay or that the woman did not try to negotiate a better. Or the third option of that they both did but one of them was still offered more than the other. The issue is not a simple black or white issue like you or others would like to make.

You are confusing how I am using the word gender. You are going by sex form of gender (male, female), while I am using gender roles ( a set of social and behavioral norms ). Women have traditionally been seen as the primary caregiver for children, meaning they were expected to either stay home with the children or put the needs of family before the needs of work. Men on the other hand traditionally have been seen as the primary provider for the family, working long hours to provider for the family. Now that most women work men are no longer the sole or primary provider but women are still seen as the primary caregiver of children. Men have been slow or reluctant to take on that role, which means women still lose work days to having to stay home and take care of a sick child. Or that women may not be able to work 20 hours of overtime and still care for children and child care is not cheap. Which is why when courts look at who to give a child to in a case it goes to the women who is seen and mostly is the primary caregiver to the child. Now you can bring some "ideal" situations up where the man is the primary caregiver but that is not the "reality" of most women or men for that matter.

Have you ever been part of the job hiring process? It does happen quite often and as long as no comes right out and tells a person they were not hired because of that reason there is nothing a person can do.

So you're talking about a theoretical for which you have zero evidence, and you're using that lack of evidence as a claim that it exists and is endemic? I don't think I need to go any further into why that's unjustifiable.

Where did I say women had to become mothers? Where did I say they have to stay home and raise their children? Don't try and call people out on assumptions when you, yourself, start off a post full of assumptions the biggest of which being calling me a feminist. If a couple wants to have children there is no "choice" in who is going to have them? There is no choice in having to take time off or leave early for medical appointments or any other time off that may happen in the course of pregnancy and giving birth. Now the man does have a choice if when wants to take time off to go with the woman to appointments or other things but there is no choice for the woman.

The issue is that giving birth has no career implications for women. It's staying at home to raise the baby that does. You're talking exclusively of the pregnancy and birth, and ignoring the actual issue. It's a straw man.

Both genders can stay home with the baby. And the medical leave associated with giving birth has never been an issue.

Why do you insisted on putting words in my mouth? Never once did I say that women who has taken off a year and half to raise children should be paid the same as someone who has not. No one is a champion for "equality in practice", you just have to used it to your argument work. When given an example that is not lacking in common sense the only answer to that is they negotiated a better for themselves which still is based on the assumption that the man did in fact negotiate a better pay or that the woman did not try to negotiate a better. Or the third option of that they both did but one of them was still offered more than the other. The issue is not a simple black or white issue like you or others would like to make.

If one were offered more than the other on the basis of gender, they'd get sued. That's sort of how the law works in this regard. You've given no reason to believe that women are consistently being offered less money solely on that basis. You have, in fact, used the absence of evidence of such as evidence in and of itself, which is kind of like saying "of COURSE you can't see the unicorns, unicorns are invisible, silly."

You are confusing how I am using the word gender. You are going by sex form of gender (male, female), while I am using gender roles ( a set of social and behavioral norms ).

Then you aren't talking about sexism. Sexism is making discriminatory decisions based on biological sex. If a stay-at-home-dad suffers the same consequences as a stay-at-home-mom, then there's no sexism in play.